More pictures.

 

Even more pictures.

 

Darn fine Finnish M28.
Thanks for posting.

 

Thank you, sir.

Indeed, other than a few dings on the stock this rifle looks more like some district headquarters wallhanger, rather than a town bicycle that also participated WW2 and supposedly witnessed death of its final recorded user in February 1940.

Today, bore measures 7.60mm and rifling machine marks are visible, at muzzle and chamber end both. In late 1936, however, the lands were found "worn" and bore condition rating was reportedly dropped from I to II. Perhaps they just get better as they age.

 

The hand guard looks to be made of beech. You don't see that often. A beautiful condition rifle with some miles on it.

 

An awesome specimen!

 

Beautiful M28. A number of years ago I bought a double slot M28 from Sparky. Had it researched and it appears to be a HQ wall hanger with almost no use from what Mangrove was able to find on it. Yours if just a beauty regardless of wall hanger status or not. Regards.

 

Ready to rock another 100years. Thanks for sharing!!!!!!!!

 

Great gun! Must be a mistake with the paperwork on degraded bore condition. The physical gun doesn't lie!

 

Let's forget the physical gun for a while and look at the data Mangrove was able to find about an m/28 rifle with serial number 13420.

The whole mess started in Varsinais-Suomi CG district in March 1930. A random group of issued m/24 rifles had been damaged in the line of duty. The SY wanted refund. In this letter dated March 24, 1930 in Turku the Varsinais-Suomi district HQ reports about the incoming payment.

Section 4. says this: "Kiväärin m/24 No 9372 / S. - on Marttilan sk. korvannut Smk:lla 340:-." or "Marttila Civil Guard has refunded 340FIM to compensate the m/24 No 9372 / no S number."

Next, there is SY's reply dated April 15, 1930. The SY states that the refund has been accepted and damaged rifles are to be replaced by new m/28 rifles. The new rifles are delivered with bayonets, frogs and muzzle protectors.

In the end of the letter it says this: "Turmeltuneista ja korvatuista kivääreistä oli yksi, teht. No 9372/S.-, ilman S-numeroa, sen tilalle tullut kivääri M/28 on myöskin S-numeroitava ja numero ilmoitettava Yliesikunnalle. Ilmoituksen k.o. S-numerosta on oltava Yliesikunnassa viimeistään 22.4.30." or "One of damaged and refunded rifles, No 9372/S.-, was without an S number. Its replacement must be S numbered and the number must be reported to the SY by April 22, 1930."

Here, the master armorer of the Varsinais-Suomi district reports that they have received a new m/28 rifle with serial number 13420 to replace the Marttila CG damaged/refunded m/24 No 9372. This new m/28 has been marked with an S number 19899. Date of the letter is April 24, 1930.

Here is the SY acceptance book featuring an m/28 with serial number 13420. The rifle was fitted with "K" or koivu (birch) stock and was high pressure proofed by "R" or Uuno Rauhala (both of these are true to my gun). No one zeroed the rifle at the factory (tark. amm. suorittaja). Then there are later (?) pencil marks that the complete rifle was accepted by "E" or Kosti Eskola. However, there is no date of inspection in the book and my gun does not have <-(KE)-> inspection mark! Finally the rifle was delivered to "22" or Varsinais-Suomi CG district on April 16, 1930. This is more than a year later than all the other rifles on this page. The other guns were also marked "ilm." or ilmainen (free of charge) which means paid by the SY (or the Finnish Government).

Here comes the ordnance book of Marttila Civil Guard. Ending date of this book No 1 is October 22, 1934.

On left-hand page there is "Ylläolevan kiv. korjaukset vuosina 1927-31" or "repairs related to rifle above during 1927-31". The master armorer states April 25, 1930 that the rifle was renewed by Sako and refers to the letter mentioned earlier. Then August 18, 1930 he says that a wood-covered cleaning rod stuck in the barrel was removed at the district arms workshop.

On the same page there is also "Alue- tai paikallispäällikön huomautukset" or "comments of regional or local chief". On June 2, 1930 it says that the rifle was sent to district arms worshop for cleaning rod removal. Must be the same wood-covered rod. Then there comes markings of rifle maintenance inspections. First one is dated by regional chief on October 27, 1931. Result of inspection was 0/10 where "0" means brand new, unissued bore while "10" means best possible gun care. Following maintenance inspection was held a year later, after the rifle was issued, and is dated October 21, 1932. The result of maintenance inspection was I/10 where "I" means issued bore in best possible condition. (Please notice, results of maintenance inspections weren't stamped to the rifle buttplate, only results of technical inspections were stamped.) On October 27, 1933 yet another maintenance inspection was held and the result was I/4 where "4" stands for worst possible gun care with notice "minor corrosion 10cm from the muzzle". Finally on October 10, 1934 inspection the result was again I/10. The records of this rifle were then continued in ordnance book No 2, starting October 22, 1934.

On right-hand page of book No 1 there are "Piirin tarkastajan huomautukset" or "comments of district inspector". First one is 0/10 inspection by the master armorer dated April 25, 1930. This is the rifle unissued and right after arrival. Then there is another inspection of still unissued rifle held by 2nd military instructor on January 8, 1931. The result was 0/10. Then finally there is yet another inspection held by 2nd military instructor on March 27, 1934. This would be the first technical inspection after the rifle was issued. The rifle condition was I/10 where "I" is bore condition.

 

I assume there’s no indication it was rebarreled any time in the last 80+ years… 🤔

 

The hand guard looks to be made of beech. You don't see that often. A beautiful condition rifle with some miles on it.

Yes, wood grain is definitely similar to beech. Has anyone yet studied m/28 handguard supply contracts in greater detail? Palokangas says there were several contracts made with "F.O. Palmin Lestitehdas" but that's pretty much about it. Not a single word about wood selection. Arma Fennica 2, page 87 says that "during the 1920s handguard material was beech, later birch". No literature reference is given. I wonder if Sparky or Airbornetrooper has updated information?

The handguard does have thin lacquer finish but it isn't stained nearly as dark as the stock. I'm not aware if handguards were finished by subcontractor or at Sako, probably the latter. The fore-end has a few dings which have dented both the stock and handguard. Chances are the handguard isn't a replacement. Barrel band fit is just about right. The rear band appears to be blued but the nosecap seems more like case hardened. The band finish is also an interesting question. Usually early m/28 guns have blued bands and front sight base while later ones have case hardened bands and front sight base. If the paperwork Mangrove found is actually about this rifle it left the factory on April 16, 1930 which is more than a year later than its siblings!

The stock finish is interesting as it's very dark, almost like ebony. It doesn't really look like refinished though. SYT marking is clearly visible. On the buttstock, under the finish there is an old "1921 pattern" S number which is either S69048, S89048, S60048 or S80048. In my undestanding the buttstock numbering was phased out long before m/28 production and since few updated m/91-->m/28 guns retained their original stocks it is likely the stock S number has nothing to do with this m/28.

Under the finish, there are a few areas which seem heavily rasped, like the woodworker's intention had been to remove deep gouges or otherwise damaged areas. One of these spots is right next to triggerguard, on right side of the stock. Other areas are much smoother but nevertheless, they all are under the stain. Just thinking about this out loud, but, I wonder if dark stain was used intentionally to hide some of these imperfections, like discolored areas? Just a wild guess.

This stock seems about as dark as this early double slot gun, a great picture from Palokangas' book.

Beautiful M28. A number of years ago I bought a double slot M28 from Sparky. Had it researched and it appears to be a HQ wall hanger with almost no use from what Mangrove was able to find on it. Yours if just a beauty regardless of wall hanger status or not. Regards.

Thank you, sir. Have you ever posted pictures of the double slot rifle you mentioned?

Great gun! Must be a mistake with the paperwork on degraded bore condition. The physical gun doesn't lie!

Thank you, sir. I will post more information about the paperwork soon. The only thing that seems to be about right is the Civil Guard HQ acceptance book which indicates that an m/28 with serial number 13420 has unusual records compared to other guns in this serial number range.

Everything else, after delivery, just falls apart. For instance, several documents indicate that the gun was S numbered but the physical gun doesn't have one! As we have seen years before, this seems to be common trait of "gearwheel" SIGs with "SY series" serial number. It would be interesting to know whether any of these other guns were ordered by the SY to be S numbered or not. Mine was and the master armorer of the Varsinais-Suomi district confirmed that he did it!

I assume there’s no indication it was rebarreled any time in the last 80+ years… 🤔

I've also tried to figure this out but no, not really. I guess Sako could have had unnumbered m/28 barrels in stock but I doubt that after 1936, date when the rifling was found worn and bore condition II, they would have numbered a new barrel with similar tools than during m/28 production.

If the original barrel was S numbered and this is just a replacement it seems odd that the bolt body is also missing the S number.

The buttplate (matches the barrel) also lacks all the proof marks of technical inspections, which this gun reportedly underwent three times, in 1934, 1936 and 1939. Bore condition marks on buttplate should be I, II and II. All these inspections were held by two different individuals and both of them forgot to stamp the bore condition! Could this be real?!

 

The stock finish is interesting as it's very dark, almost like ebony. It doesn't really look like refinished though. SYT marking is clearly visible. On the buttstock, under the finish there is an old "1921 pattern" S number which is either S69048, S89048, S60048 or S80048. In my undestanding the buttstock numbering was phased out long before m/28 production and since few updated m/91-->m/28 guns retained their original stocks it is likely the stock S number has nothing to do with this m/28.

View attachment 4372279 View attachment 4372278

Under the finish, there are a few areas which seem heavily rasped, like the woodworker's intention had been to remove deep gouges or otherwise damaged areas. One of these spots is right next to triggerguard, on right side of the stock. Other areas are much smoother but nevertheless, they all are under the stain. Just thinking about this out loud, but, I wonder if dark stain was used intentionally to hide some of these imperfections, like discolored areas? Just a wild guess.

View attachment 4372288 View attachment 4372276 View attachment 4372277

This stock seems about as dark as this early double slot gun, a great picture from Palokangas' book.

View attachment 4372258

I've got an orginial matching double-slot m/28 that has remnants of that same very dark finish.

 

I will see if I have any pics? Maybe Dave {Sparky} has some SN #9091, CG #112421. My picture posting ability it spotty at best. I still need a new computer this one, like me is old and decrepit. Regards, John. PS I did find two pages of paper work from Mangrove on this rifle. No pics. Sorry. Also I don't read or speak Finnish.

 

I will see if I have any pics? Maybe Dave {Sparky} has some SN #9091, CG #112421. My picture posting ability it spotty at best. I still need a new computer this one, like me is old and decrepit. Regards, John. PS I did find two pages of paper work from Mangrove on this rifle. No pics. Sorry. Also I don't read or speak Finnish.

It says that your m/28 rifle was received on October 10, 1928 to replace an old rile (possibly m/91 or m/24). The gun got a rear sight notch plate replaced on November 1, 1932. Then it says that the rifle data has been transferred to a newer weapons book on April 8, 1933. All the newer CG era records about this rifle would be found in that new book also.

 

Here is ordnance book No 2 starting from October 19, 1934.

In addition to notes mentioned in book No 1 there are markings of annual maintenance inspections held by regional chief in every November in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938. As can be seen, gun care was "10" or top notch every year but bore condition was lowered to "II" in 1937. This is because 2nd military instructor had lowered the bore condition rating in 1936 technical inspection. These were inspections that were held once in every three years so that they should not take place during the same half-year as maintenance inspections held annually by regional chief.

The right-hand page of book No. 2 is the most interesting one. Markings left by district inspectors represent, in my understanding, rifle technical inspections. In 1932 the SY had ordered that the rifle bore condition, evaluated during these inspections by 2nd military instructor, should be marked to the rifle buttplate. This rifle was technically inspected in March 27, 1934, December 11, 1936 and February 14, 1939. At the 1936 inspection the bore condition was lowered from I to II with notification "worn rifling".

The next column shows the civilguadsmen who used the rifle. The rifle was issued as follows:

Viljo Mattila - from January 1, 1932 until February 11, 1936
Lauri Aalto - from March 21, 1936 until November 6, 1936
Lauri Uusitalo - from November 6, 1936 until May 8, 1938
Aarne Varjokivi - from November 21, 1939...

Aarne Varjokivi was a civilguardsman who serviced as a rifleman in 2./JR 14 and died in Summa on February 14, 1940.

 

Here is the SY acceptance book featuring an m/28 with serial number 13420. The rifle was fitted with "K" or koivu (birch) stock and was high pressure proofed by "R" or Uuno Rauhala (both of these are true to my gun). No one zeroed the rifle at the factory (tark. amm. suorittaja). Then there are later (?) pencil marks that the complete rifle was accepted by "E" or Kosti Eskola. However, there is no date of inspection in the book and my gun does not have <-(KE)-> inspection mark! Finally the rifle was delivered to "22" or Varsinais-Suomi CG district on April 16, 1930. This is more than a year later than all the other rifles on this page. The other guns were also marked "ilm." or ilmainen (free of charge) which means paid by the SY (or the Finnish Government).

The "E" and the date 16 April 1930 have been written with a different ink and hand than the markings on the other serial numbers. "Ilmainen" marking refers to the fact the rifles were distributed free of charge from the point of view of the Civil Guard Districts. The other common way was through "yks." or yksityinen (or yksityis-) or partly paid by private funding. The lack of the name of the person who sighted the rifle, name of the inspector and the lack of sighting results is typical for m/28 rifles that were not property of Suojeluskuntain Yliesikunta (SY, later SK.Y, Headquarters of the Civil Guard). This does not always mean a private property in a sense of an individual Guardsman since Districts and individual Civil Guard themselves could also own rifles.

As can be seen, gun care was "10" or top notch every year but bore condition was lowered to "II" in 1937. This is because 2nd military instructor had lowered the bore condition rating in 1936 technical inspection. These were inspections that were held once in every three years so that they should not take place during the same half-year as maintenance inspections held annually by regional chief.

While in many Civil Guard Districts the 2nd Military Instructor only inspected the rifle bore condition every three years, some Districts inspected the bores every other year or even every year, if possible. Only the 2nd Military Instructors or Armourers had the authority of classify bore conditions.

Aarne Varjokivi was a civilguardsman who serviced as a rifleman in 2./JR 14 and died in Summa on February 14, 1940.

Interesting enough, Varjokivi was conscripted by the Finnish Defence Forces on 9 October 1939, but the rifle was not officially issued to him by the Civil Guard until 21 November 1939! His company war diary recorded -38 C (c. -36 F) temperature at Summa on 17 January 1940. From the same war diary (National Archives of Finland, SPK 1042):

"14 February 1940. 3 p.m. The company regrouped for a counterattack [against the Soviet breakthrough]. Just as it was about to set off, the Russkies bombarded with artillery, killing Corporal Apila and wounding three men. Of these, Private Rintala later died of his wounds on 16 February. The company began counterattack at around 6.30 p.m, starting about 1½ kilometers north of the Summa support line. Losses at this time: Private Varjokivi was killed by machine gun fire from a tank and a few were slightly wounded. The company reached the support line. [...]"

 

CH sorry I cannot find pictures of #9091, though I know Sparky did post pictures of it when he got it? I thought I had some for my records but so far I have not found them. In the paperwork for #9091, the bore is 1/10 most inspections. A couple gave it a 1/8 but both before and afterwards most were 1/10. This rifle was a standard M28 and not marked as a civilian sales rifle. Thought I had better clarify that. I can take cellphone pics but have a real hit and miss thing going on getting them do download to computer. Lots of sticks in the fire right now and getting the new computer will have to get in line. Maybe this week. Thanks, John.

 

First of all, thanks to Mangrove for thorough research.

It seems more of these rifles should be studied to find out if there is a pattern related to gearwheel m/28s in SY contract serial number range. For instance, these guns don't ever (?) appear to be S numbered but are there guns other than mine which the SY, according to correspondence, wanted to be S numbered?

Also, if these other guns feature a matching buttplate does any of them have bore condition markings? Maybe CG subunit purchased guns weren't marked the same way as the ones owned by the government?

It is not fully clear to me if the predecessor of this m/28, the m/24 No 9372 / no S number, was government property or not. The SY sure wanted refund from the Marttila CG for ruining it, but for 340FIM they got a "gearwheel" gun, not an "SY" gun. If the original m/24 gun was government property to begin with, simple refund should not change the replacement's ownership status. Or, did the Marttila CG pay more than what was asked for to get the upgraded model and ownership? I can see that the Mynämäki CG only paid 289FIM for their m/24 but maybe they didn't damage it as badly? The letter subject is "bulged rifles" so I suppose they all had enlarged chambers or bores?

The A.H.O. 1, published about two years later in 1932, says that the Ministry of Defence charged 650FIM for a completely ruined rifle while price of a new barrel was 180FIM (pages 226-227).

While in many Civil Guard Districts the 2nd Military Instructor only inspected the rifle bore condition every three years, some Districts inspected the bores every other year or even every year, if possible. Only the 2nd Military Instructors or Armourers had the authority of classify bore conditions.

This increased inspection frequency seems interesting. It says in A.H.O 1 that regional chiefs didn't classify bore condition but only checked if it had remained the same as evaluated earlier by the 2nd military instructor (or by the master armorer if the former was absent). Previously I thought that regional chief only performed maintenance inspections but it says in the book, page 44, that they did technical inspections also. Well, it also says in the book that during technical inspection he should perform maintenance inspection as well. Still they weren't allowed to lower bore condition evaluation on their own.

CH sorry I cannot find pictures of #9091, though I know Sparky did post pictures of it when he got it? I thought I had some for my records but so far I have not found them. In the paperwork for #9091, the bore is 1/10 most inspections. A couple gave it a 1/8 but both before and afterwards most were 1/10. This rifle was a standard M28 and not marked as a civilian sales rifle. Thought I had better clarify that. I can take cellphone pics but have a real hit and miss thing going on getting them do download to computer. Lots of sticks in the fire right now and getting the new computer will have to get in line. Maybe this week. Thanks, John.

John, thanks for the information. No problem, just take your time.

I've got an orginial matching double-slot m/28 that has remnants of that same very dark finish.

That finish looks exactly the same as that of mine. The stock wood in worn areas looks fine, so no discoloration or any other nasty stuff. Maybe my theory of hiding something with extra dark finish was total misconception.

 

Gorgeous gearwheel stamped m/28 @CH! Quite an enigma regarding what was written about your m/28, the one thing I can definitely say is that it had owner/owners who took great care of it though it’s life. I hope you’ll keep the thread updated on any more details you get about it. Especially since it may help in shedding some light on my gearwheel stamped m/28🧐

 

I apologize for the crappy pics. I found them hidden in front of me not marked what rifle I was taking pics of. Only a few may give you an idea. It is in nice condition but far from unissued I guess. Bolt has all four numbers {.9091} on knob, the mag is obviously original finish. I don't have the "eye" for original finish but if it is it is more worn or thinned in picture. Have rifle in my kitchen at the moment. It is one of my best M28s in many ways but not perfect as I remember. Like many things I remember.

 

Gorgeous gearwheel stamped m/28 @CH! Quite an enigma regarding what was written about your m/28, the one thing I can definitely say is that it had owner/owners who took great care of it though it’s life. I hope you’ll keep the thread updated on any more details you get about it. Especially since it may help in shedding some light on my gearwheel stamped m/28🧐

Thank you, sir. I had totally missed your original post from January so I'll link your gearwheel m/28 here for easier comparison.

https://www.gunboards.com/threads/civilian-sales-m-28.1266667/

Yes, there are many similarities with these two SIG RIIHIMÄKIs. Both, I think, have birch stock with really dark stain finish. Neither is S numbered but only feature S prefixes, stamped at Sako, on the barrel and bolt flat. Neither has Kosti Eskola's <-(KE)-> acceptance mark stamped after inspection of completed rifle.

Have you checked the top of the buttplate for bore condition markings? There should be one to three roman numerals going clockwise around the top retaining screw. Usually you see =I= or =II=, sometimes =III= on a really worn, or corroded (or two =II= grade defects occurring simultaneously!) but serviceable rifles. Markings of rejected barrels, or =IV=, are rarely seen but they are out there.

Yours, I think, has a bit nicer gearwheel stamp on the barrel, although neither is perfect. I can see yours too has a light partial gearwheel touch above the final mark location.

Mine has multiple gearwheel stamps making the logo a real Frankenstein. Then you can also see, what I think are, erratic single gear tooth marks in random places, at least where the "S twigs" are located. Was the Sako craftsman drunk or a subversive communist, I don't know!

Both the barrel and receiver of mine have similar bluish grey bluing and the gearwheel & serial number have lighter "halos" around them. Seems factory job to me and not reworked later. Yours too.

I apologize for the crappy pics. I found them hidden in front of me not marked what rifle I was taking pics of. Only a few may give you an idea. It is in nice condition but far from unissued I guess. Bolt has all four numbers {.9091} on knob, the mag is obviously original finish. I don't have the "eye" for original finish but if it is it is more worn or thinned in picture. Have rifle in my kitchen at the moment. It is one of my best M28s in many ways but not perfect as I remember. Like many things I remember.

Hi John, thanks for the pictures. Yours looks like a war hero! Buttplate and stock are most likely original for this gun. Bluing looks good and it doesn't seem to be reblued either. The bolt might be a replacement since there is a lined-out number on the body flat that doesn't look like a matching S number. Before the mid-1930s Sako stamped two last digits of the serial number to the bolt knob. After that they switched to four digits. The SA sometimes added extra digits to otherwise "original" early-mid CG era bolts. All kinds of variations seem to exist due to SA repairs!

 

Thank you, sir. I had totally missed your original post from January so I'll link your gearwheel m/28 here for easier comparison.

https://www.gunboards.com/threads/civilian-sales-m-28.1266667/

Yes, there are many similarities with these two SIG RIIHIMÄKIs. Both, I think, have birch stock with really dark stain finish. Neither is S numbered but only feature S prefixes, stamped at Sako, on the barrel and bolt flat. Neither has Kosti Eskola's <-(KE)-> acceptance mark stamped after inspection of completed rifle.

Have you checked the top of the buttplate for bore condition markings? There should be one to three roman numerals going clockwise around the top retaining screw. Usually you see =I= or =II=, sometimes =III= on a really worn, or corroded (or two =II= grade defects occurring simultaneously!) but serviceable rifles. Markings of rejected barrels, or =IV=, are rarely seen but they are out there.

Yours, I think, has a bit nicer gearwheel stamp on the barrel, although neither is perfect. I can see yours too has a light partial gearwheel touch above the final mark location.

Mine has multiple gearwheel stamps making the logo a real Frankenstein. Then you can also see, what I think are, erratic single gear tooth marks in random places, at least where the "S twigs" are located. Was the Sako craftsman drunk or a subversive communist, I don't know!

Both the barrel and receiver of mine have similar bluish grey bluing and the gearwheel & serial number have lighter "halos" around them. Seems factory job to me and not reworked later. Yours too.

View attachment 4374484 View attachment 4374485 View attachment 4374486




Hi John, thanks for the pictures. Yours looks like a war hero! Buttplate and stock are most likely original for this gun. Bluing looks good and it doesn't seem to be reblued either. The bolt might be a replacement since there is a lined-out number on the body flat that doesn't look like a matching S number. Before the mid-1930s Sako stamped two last digits of the serial number to the bolt knob. After that they switched to four digits. The SA sometimes added extra digits to otherwise "original" early-mid CG era bolts. All kinds of variations seem to exist due to SA repairs!

Actually mine doesn’t have any bore condition markings on the buttplate interestingly enough, I attached some photos of the buttplate on my gearwheel stamped m/28

Looking back I’ve should’ve included photos of the buttplate on my post back in January🤦‍♂️

The Seller I bought the my m/28 from said he had @Mangrove do some research on it and included photos of the paperwork related to it. Attached here are those photos:

I feel extremely fortunate to be able to have it in my collection and I hope that we’ll continue to get new information about these RIIHIMÄKI Gearwheel m/28’s!

 

Previous thread about this very rifle: Gunboards.com - M28 Sako. The first document is a part of the book kept by the HQ of the Civil Guard (Suojeluskuntain Yliesikunta, SY, later Sk.Y) listing m/28 rifles produced and inspected during April-June 1929. There's nothing under S/N 18485. There are no similar rifles within a few hundred serial numbers. The second page is from the records of S 66270 (S/N 8158, made in 1928), which is the number marked on the bolt of the rifle. This rifle was still in Civil Guard use in 1938.

Thank you for the information @Mangrove , I really appreciate it! I wasn’t aware of the previous post of my Gearwheel stamped m28.

Thank you for the pictures and additional information. D'oh, I must have a wooden eye because I didn't realize this is the same rifle that KC651 once had! Funny how the same gun can look so different in a different set of photos.

Does the Marathon import mark on the barrel mean that this is one of the earlier exports when the Finnish Army was disposing the m/28 rifles from their inventory? If yes, then obviously a rifle such as this could have served the SA in WW2 without ever receiving real signs of later SA ownership!

It's very interesting to see that neither your m/28 has bore condition markings on the buttplate. Since the SY acceptance book doesn't give any further information of the serial number 18485 it is quite difficult to say where the rifle was shipped after the manufacture. For 13420 the books says "22" which is the Varsinais-Suomi district. Was the 18485 ever technically inspected at some CG, well, without any record it's hard to tell.

Mangrove also tried to find out what's behind the lined-out old S number 34669 seen on left side of the bolt body. The first rifle he found was a 1915 Westinghouse 861690 that got this S number in 1921. I believe, however, that this number was originally stamped to the buttstock. Was this number later restamped to metal of the same gun, I don't know as there is perhaps no further records available.

Another gun with S number 34669 was an m/24 with serial number 24044 that was manufactured in 1926 and got S numbered in 1927. The only problem is that this rifle was in the records until 1937 when it was discarded due to bulged chamber. My m/28 was manufactured-shipped in 1929-1930 and °20 on the bolt knob suggests quite heavily that this is the original bolt body for this rifle. It doesn't seem likely that Sako would have used ° prefix on knob as late as 1937 if, somehow, this recycled former m/24 bolt body had migrated into my gun after that...

Of course, I’m happy to provide any information or photos I can! Yup I purchased it from @KC651 at the Tulsa Show, Great collector!

I actually recently got its consecutive serial number #18484, district number #14989. Just a regular m/28 with nothing special that sadly had the stock “improved”, still neat to find it though. Sorry for the lackluster of photos but preparing for the first round of exams for my college semester does take priority for me.

 

I actually recently got its consecutive serial number #18484, district number #14989. Just a regular m/28 with nothing special that sadly had the stock “improved”, still neat to find it though. Sorry for the lackluster of photos but preparing for the first round of exams for my college semester does take priority for me.

Now that's pretty neat-one-to-have m/28 for good comparison! Does this one, the 18484, have <-(KE)-> mark on the right side of the chamber? I think I'm seeing it from the first photo, right above the S, but can't see in detail to be 100% sure.

The photo from SY acceptance book indicates this particular rifle was inspected by Kosti Eskola on May 13, 1929.

The next column shows the civilguadsmen who used the rifle. The rifle was issued as follows:

Viljo Mattila - from January 1, 1932 until February 11, 1936
Lauri Aalto - from March 21, 1936 until November 6, 1936
Lauri Uusitalo - from November 6, 1936 until May 8, 1938
Aarne Varjokivi - from November 21, 1939...

View attachment 4373037

If we assume that the CG data related to 13420 is all really about my gun it's rather dreadful to study the fate of its former users. Viljo Mattila died in Metsäpirtti on February 18, 1940. Lauri Uusitalo died in Muolaa on December 7, 1939. Aarne Varjokivi, as mentioned, died in Summa on February 14, 1940. I've not found information about Lauri Aalto but at least his corpse doesn't seem to be located in the soldiers' grave of Marttila.

http://mikrokamari.fi/veteraanit/sankarivainajat/sankarihautajaiset.htm

Now I may understand why the stock is so dressed in black.

 

I've not found information about Lauri Aalto but at least his corpse doesn't seem to be located in the soldiers' grave of Marttila.

I would think this person is the same as one Kaarlo Lauri Aalto (b. 6 August 1914, d. 23 May 1992) buried at Marttila cemetery. I have several times observed the rifle records often reflect that the person preferred to use their middle name. One K. L. Aalto is also mentioned to have being promoted from a conscript to Guardsman at Marttila Civil Guard in 1932. Interesting enough, he had a son called Lauri Aalto (b. 17 February 1940, d. 23 June 1982).

Naturally, one would have to look up his service records to be absolutely sure.